Topic 1: Theories of Religion; Functionalist Theories of Religion

Unit 3: Beliefs in Society

L.O.• Understand different sociological definitions of religion;• Understand how different sociological theories explain

the role and functions of religion, and how religion contributes to social stability; and

• Be able to evaluate different sociological definitions and theories of religion.

Introduction

For functionalists, society is a system of interrelated parts or social institutions, such as religion, the family and the economy. Society is like an organism, with basic needs that it must meet in order to survive. These needs are met by the different institutions. Each institution performs certain functions which contribute to maintaining the social system by meeting a need.

Society’s most basic need is the need for social order and solidarity so that its member can cooperate. For functionalists, what makes order possible is the existence of value consensus- a set of shared norms and values by which society’s members live. Without this, individuals would pursue their own selfish desires and society would disintegrate.

For functionalists, religious institutions play a central part in creating and maintaining value consensus, order and solidarity. The first functionalist to develop this idea was Durkheim (1858-1917).

The Sacred and the ProfaneFor Durkheim (1915), the key feature of religion was not a belief in gods, spirits or the supernatural, but a fundamental distinction between the sacred and the profane found n all religions.

The sacred are things set apart and forbidden, that inspire feelings of awe, fear and wonder, and are surrounded by taboos and prohibitions.

By contrast, the profane are the things that have no special significance- things that are ordinary and mundane.

Furthermore, a religion is never simply a set of beliefs. It also involves definite rituals or practices in relation to the sacred, and these rituals are collective- performed by social groups.

The fact that sacred things evoke such powerful feelings in believers indicates to Durkheim that this is because they are symbols representing something of great power. In his view, this thing can only be society itself, since society is the only thing powerful enough to command such feelings. When they worship the sacred symbols, therefore, people are worshipping society itself. For Durkheim, although sacred symbols vary from religion to religion, they all perform the essential function of uniting believers into a single moral community.

Totemism

Durkheim believed that the essence of all religion could be found by studying its simplest form, in the simplest type of society- clan society. For this reason, he used studies of the Arunta, an Australian Aboriginal tribe with a clan system.

Arunta clans consist of bands of kin who come together periodically to perform rituals involving worship of a sacred totem. The totem is the clan’s emblem, such as an animal or plant that symbolises the clan’s origins and identity. The totemic rituals venerating it serve to reinforce the group’s solidarity and sense of belonging.

For Durkheim, when clan members worship their totemic animal, they are in reality worshipping society- even though they themselves are not aware of this fact. The totem inspires feelings of awe in the clan’s members precisely because it represents the power of the group on which the individual is ‘utterly dependent.’

The Collective Conscience

In Durkheim's view, the sacred symbols represent society’s collective conscience or consciousness. This is the shared norms, values, beliefs and knowledge that make social life and cooperation between individuals possible, without these society would disintegrate.

For Durkheim, regular shared religious rituals reinforce the collective conscience and maintain social integration. Participating in shared rituals binds individuals together, reminding them that they are part of a single moral community to which they owe their loyalty. Such rituals would also remind the individual of the power in society- without which they themselves are nothing, and to which they owe everything.

In this sense, religion also performs an important functions for the individual. By making us feel part of something greater than ourselves, religion reinvigorates and strengthens us to face life’s trials and motivates us to overcome obstacles that would otherwise defeat us.

Cognitive Functions of Religion

Durkheim sees religion as not only as the source of social solidarity, but also of our intellectual or cognitive capacities- our ability to reason and think conceptually. For example, in order to think at all, we need categories such as time, space, cause, substance number etc. And secondly, in order to share our thoughts, we need to use the same categories as others.

In Durkheim’s view, religion is the origin of the concepts and categories we need for reasoning, understanding the world and communicating. In their book Primitive Classification, Durkheim and Marcel Mauss (1903) argue that religion provides basic categories such as time, pace, causation- for example, with the ideas about a creator bringing the world into being at the beginning of tome. Similarly the division of tribes into clans gives humans their first notion of classification. Thus for Durkheim, religion is the origin of human thought, reason and science.

Criticisms The evidence on totemism is unsound. Worsely (1956) notes that there

is no sharp division between the sacred and the profane, and that different clans share the same totems. And even if Durkheim is rights about totemism, this does not prove that he has discovered the essence of all other religions.

Durkheim's theory may apply better to small scale societies with a single religion. It is harder to apply it to large- scale societies, where two or more religious communities may be in conflict. His theory may explain social integration within communities, but not the conflicts between them.

Similarly, postmodernists such as Stephen Mestrovic (1997) argue that Durkheim’s ideas cannot be applied to contemporary society, because increasing diversity has fragmented the collective conscience, so there is no longer a single shared value system for religion to reinforce.

Psychological Functions of Religion

The anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1954) agrees with Durkheim that religion promotes solidarity. However, in his view; it does so by performing psychological functions for individuals, helping them to cope with emotional stress that would undermine social solidarity. Malinowski identifies two types of situation in which religion performs this role:

1 Where the outcome is important but uncontrollable and thus uncertain. In his study of the Trobriand Islanders of the Western Pacific, Malinowski contrasts fishing in the lagoon with fishing in the ocean.

• Lagoon fishing is safe and uses the predictable and successful method of poisoning. When the islanders fish in the lagoon, there is no ritual.

• Ocean fishing is dangerous and uncertain, and is always accompanied by ‘canoe magic’- rituals to ensure a safe and successful expedition. This gives people a sense of control, which eases tension, gives them confidence to undertake hazardous tasks and enforces group solidarity. He sees ritual serving as ‘god of the gaps’- it fills the gaps in human beings’ control over the world, such as being unable to control the outcomes of a fishing trip.

2 At times of life crisis. Events such as birth, puberty, marriage and especially death mark major and disruptive changes in social groups. Religion helps to minimise disruption. For example, the funeral rituals reinforce a feeling of solidarity among the survivors, while the notion of immortality gives comfort to the bereaved by denying the fact of death. In fact, Malinowski argues that death is the main reason for the existence of religious belief.

Parsons: Values and MeaningLike Malinowski, Talcott Parsons (1967) sees religion helping individuals o cope with unforeseen events and uncontrollable outcomes. In addition, Parsons identifies two other essential functions that religion performs in modern society.§ It creates and legitimates society’s central values.§ It is the primary source of meaning.

Religion creates and legitimates society’s basic norms and values by sacralising them. Thus is the USA, Protestantism has sacralised the core American values and individualism, meritocracy and self-discipline. This serves to promote value consensus and thus social stability.

Religion also provides a source of meaning in particular, it answers ‘ultimate’ questions about the human condition, such as why the good suffer and why some die young. Such events defy our sense of justice and make life appear meaningless, and this may undermine our commitment to society’s values. Religion provides answers to such questions, for example by explaining suffering as a test of faith that will be rewarded in heaven. By doing so, religion enables people to adjust to adverse events or circumstances and helps maintain stability.

Civil Religion

Like Parsons, Robert Bellah (1970) is interested in how religion unifies society, especially a multi-faith society like America. What unifies American society is an overarching civil religion- a belief system that attaches sacred qualities to society itself. In the American case, civil religion is a faith in Americanism or ‘the American way of life’.

Bellah argues that civil religion integrates society in a way that individual religions cannot. While non of the many individual churches and denominations can claim the loyalty of all Americans, civil religion can. American civil religion involves loyalty to the nation-state and belief in God, both of which are equated with being a true American. It is expressed in various rituals, symbols and beliefs; such as the pledge of allegiance to the flag, singing the national anthem, the Lincoln Memorial, and phrases such as ‘One nation under God’. However, this is not a specifically Catholic, Protestant of Jewish God, but rather and ‘American God. It sacralises the American way of life d binds together Americans from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Functional Alternatives

Functional alternatives or functional equivalents to religion are non-religious beliefs and practices that perform functions similar to those of organised religion, such as reinforcing shared values or maintaining social cohesion.

For example, although civil religion in America involves a belief in God, Bellah argues that this doesn’t have to be the case. Some other belief system could perform the same functions. For example, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union has secular political beliefs and rituals around which they sought to unite society.

However, the problem with the idea of functional definitions of religion is, it ignored what makes religion distinctive and different- namely, it is a belief in the supernatural.

Evaluation of Functionalism Functionalism emphasises the social nature of religion and the positive

functions it performs, but it neglects negative aspects such as, religion as a source of oppression of the poor or women.

It ignores religion as a source of division or conflict, especially in complex modern societies where there is more than one religion- e.g. Northern Ireland. Where there is religious pluralism, it is hard to see how it can unite people and promote integration.

The idea of civil religion overcomes this problem to some extent, by arguing that societies may still have an overarching belief system shared by all, but is this really religion- especially if it is not based on belief in the supernatural?

Evaluate the contribution of functionalist theories to our understanding of the role and functions of religion in the world today. (33 marks)

Check out June 2013 AQA Mark Scheme- Beliefs in SocietyAO1 AO2

Evaluate the contribution of functionalist theories to our understanding of the role and functions of religion in the world today. (33 marks)

Introduction: in what ways do functionalists view religion? A) a way to oppress women B) to enforce male dominance? C) to enforce social solidarity? What else?

Main body: Who agree with the functionalist theory of religion? A) New Right B) Feminists C) Marxists D) Neo-Marxists E) Social Action F) Interactionists G) Postmodernists? Why? What evidence is there to support this?

Who disagree with functionalists? A) New Right B) Feminists C) Marxists D) Neo-Marxists E) Social Action F) Interactionists G) Postmodernists? Why? What evidence is there to support this?

Conclusion: What do you think about the functionalist contribution? Who, if any, theorist(s) give(s) a better contribution, why?

Remember: AO1 knowledge and understanding AND AO2 analysis and evaluation=

Question Plan Template